As I depart this very special town, I want to share with you what I consider one of the biggest challenges facing Harvard: the misconceptions of affordable housing and impact of the state’s 40B solution.
Yes, our town needs affordable housing and I believe it is healthy and prudent for us to provide the necessary options to solve this problem. But I question everyone that backs the 40B approach in any community that is way behind on the state-mandated percentages—like Harvard. This law is criminal for a town like Harvard. It burdens our schools, infrastructure, and inevitably our way of life. Don’t give in: it’s a fraud to primarily benefit the builders and their supporters.
One recent example is the proposed 40B development at 260 Stow Road. When the developer was denied his initial non-40B plan, he took a path down 40B lane. His objective is not to provide affordable housing as a goal, only to develop the parcel for profit. 40B provides that alternative—all under the guise of affordable housing.
I respect what Bonnie Heudorfer eventually stated in her article “There’s no Silver Bullet on 40B” last week. But just because surrounding communities have received one-year reprieves does not mean it is right for Harvard. These communities could have started with much higher percentages to reach those goals. Further, I applaud the folks who pursued the path of “statutory minima.”
We need to find creative ways to produce affordable housing for our town. I recommend that our town, and its residents, take a true lead in the efforts of affordable housing reform. One solution would be to pay the developer (right up front) to develop a higher percentage of units as affordable. This would accomplish two things: first, move us towards our mandated percentages, and second, reduce the future cost to the town by paying for this incremental growth in today’s dollars, not at tomorrow’s inflated rates.
Tim Muldoon
Jacob Gates Road
